5 ms·

In addition to the no-surprise explanation of the "tax cut" not being an actual cut at all for most people and the uptick in household interest payments (likely

In addition to the no-surprise explanation of the "tax cut" not being an actual cut at all for most people and the uptick in household interest payments (likely driven by student loans and increased housing prices in many markets), the key takeaway quote for me is: "two-thirds of April’s new jobs were generated in lower-wage services industries such as administration and support services, health and social services, leisure and hospitality, among others. The flip-side of this dynamic is that high-paying job growth has been nearly halved to 1.6 percent since peaking in 2015." I've been trying to explain to people for years now that reduction in unemployment does not mean people are getting good jobs, it just means people are getting a job that employs them "full-time" with or without benefits, livable salary, etc. The data here supports that: "good" job growth is far outpaced by low-quality job growth.

iscrewyou 8y ago
> I've been trying to explain to people for years now that reduction in unemployment does not mean people are getting good jobs, it just means people are getting a job that employs them "full-time" with or without benefits, livable salary, etc. I’d like to amend that unemployment numbers that are widely reported are simply people employed (not full time). It includes part time, people who work in one industry but have expertise in a different industry(see retail). All I’m saying is it’s good to keep that in mind when reading these unemployment numbers.
- ProAm 8y ago
  And it doesnt take into consideration people that gave up looking for work because they couldnt find it and no longer receive unemployment benefits.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Probably half of people on disability should be counted as unemployed.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pkaye 8y ago
  There is also the U6 unemployment rate which adds is discouraged and part time workers who desire full time.
  - larkost 8y ago
    My first thought was: what are those numbers doing, and the first graph I found is that all of these seem to be tracking about the same way: https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate So it is an important thing to consider, but it does not look like it tells a different story at the moment.
- RickJWagner 8y ago
  Wages have been rising too, for the first time in many years. This is truly a time of economic prosperity (at least in the US). It won't last forever. Make whatever moves you have available to you at this time to prepare for the times ahead. Like the boom years of Reagan and Clinton, we'll all look back at this time later and say "What an opportunity!" Sadly, there inevitably will be a fall like 2000 or 2008 at some point to bring us back to earth.
jdmichal 8y ago
I'd like to note that the article makes no claim regarding whether the tax cut saved households money. Rather, we now have the numbers that show a huge swing towards households owing taxes at the end of the year. That says nothing about the tax charged them, and everything about their withholding.
- slg 8y ago
  The tax bill was designed in a way to make people's previous withholdings inaccurate (although theoretically more accurate overall). That was politically motivated for two reasons. People were more likely to see a positive (or less likely to see a negative) impact on their paycheck from the tax bill passing. Republicans have also historically wanted to make the act of paying taxes more painful for the average American on the belief that it would generate political motivation for lowering taxes. Tweaking the withholding rules to result in larger payments (or lower refunds) when filing taxes is part of that plan. Both those points have nothing to do with whether the overall tax plan was beneficial for the average American or the country at large.
- jvanderbot 8y ago
  Which, by the way, was a suprise due to the mostly-unpublicized changes to the withholding rates. Add in tax penalties and it's a very unwelcome suprise for all but the most vigilant / those that pay people to manage their money.
humblebee 8y ago
I wish we also tracked the number of jobs people had. Having 600,000 new jobs is good, except if a high percentage of those are second jobs.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
  We track unemployment (at several different levels). Isn't the relevant question how many people don't have a job? Or are under-employed?
  - humblebee 8y ago
    Far out hypothetical: Laws and regulations can be passed / amended that allow companies to cut the hours of employees by half and allow them to hire twice as many people. This produces more jobs, but I do not believe it's a positive. Maybe there is another metric that can be included to better represent if job grow is having a positive. Maybe under employed captures this. I don't know.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
      U-6 captures that [= Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
zaroth 8y ago
More lower income jobs is not the same as low quality job growth. It’s great to see job growth at the lower income spectrums, which ultimately leads to wage growth in that same area of the curve. There is no reasonable interpretation of our current nearly decade long run of employment numbers that is anything less than gangbusters. The US economy is literally the envy of the entire world right now.
djrogers 8y ago
> In addition to the no-surprise explanation of the "tax cut" not being an actual cut at all for most people Justify that statement please. Every single study of the 2017 tax cuts has shown that the vast majority of Americans did in fact get a tax cut. Every. Single. One. Even the New York Times admits as much. Either you haven't really looked in to this at all, or you've bought some policital rally baloney that is completey ungrounded in truth. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...
- empath75 8y ago
  Most people did not save a meaningful amount of money while the wealthy got a massive benefit in comparison.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    Because most people likely spent the extra they got from the tax cut?
  - djrogers 8y ago
    Not supported by facts in evidence.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    Taking that view further most people pay a meaningless amount of money in taxes while the wealthy pay the vast majority. The tax cut helped my family, if it didn't help yours perhaps consider if the state taxes you pay match up with the services rendered.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  From your link: > The middle fifth of earners got about a $780 tax cut last year on average, according to the Tax Policy Center. > The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock. Hence (rightfully so) pitchforks. The average American taxpayer was bamboozled.
seanwilson 8y ago
> I've been trying to explain to people for years now that reduction in unemployment does not mean people are getting good jobs Is there a better metric for this? Something that combines the number of people with jobs with the amount they're making?
s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
The article doesn't say the tax cut didn't help most people. It makes the point that most people didn't notice it because they only pay attention to their tax refund. Their tax refund is going to be lower because they paid less taxes over the course of the year. They are less likely to notice those incremental payments, but it's disingenuous to say they didn't receive a tax cut. Ideally you want your tax refund to be $0 and invest the money instead of overpaying taxes. Basically it boils down to who can manage your money better, do you need Uncle Sam to hold on to your money or not.
m0zg 8y ago
>> two-thirds of April’s new jobs were generated in lower-wage services industries Um, yeah, no shit. That's one of the segments this administration wants to help and create job market competition for: small businesses, low income people, folks who were SOL under previous administrations and voted for this one. Nearly every major economic initiative by this administration is targeted at tightening supply on the lower end of the job market: from stimulating manufacturing jobs, to China trade war, to NAFTA, to strengthening the border, and cutting off the flow of illegal low-wage labor. Reduction in unemployment means less supply, less supply coupled with higher demand means labor can command higher prices. This is economics 101.
nevrthepfhor 8y ago
Not a cut? Based on what data? Or is this a bait-and-switch where anything less than $2k is peanuts (so it's not really a cut)? I understand that people who own homes in high-tax states are missing out because of the SALT reform, but that's a far cry from 'most' people. I'm glad that taxes went down for most people, but the cut made the tax code far more progressive than it already was, which I don't think is fair. But it's better than nothing.
MuffinFlavored 8y ago
how has automation not been a factor here? call centers, truck driving, etc.
coolaliasbro 8y ago
Exactly. Like using lines of code as a proxy for progress or success.

iscrewyou 8y ago

> I've been trying to explain to people for years now that reduction in unemployment does not mean people are getting good jobs, it just means people are getting a job that employs them "full-time" with or without benefits, livable salary, etc. I’d like to amend that unemployment numbers that are widely reported are simply people employed (not full time). It includes part time, people who work in one industry but have expertise in a different industry(see retail). All I’m saying is it’s good to keep that in mind when reading these unemployment numbers.

ProAm 8y ago
And it doesnt take into consideration people that gave up looking for work because they couldnt find it and no longer receive unemployment benefits.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Probably half of people on disability should be counted as unemployed.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pkaye 8y ago
There is also the U6 unemployment rate which adds is discouraged and part time workers who desire full time.
- larkost 8y ago
  My first thought was: what are those numbers doing, and the first graph I found is that all of these seem to be tracking about the same way: https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate So it is an important thing to consider, but it does not look like it tells a different story at the moment.
RickJWagner 8y ago
Wages have been rising too, for the first time in many years. This is truly a time of economic prosperity (at least in the US). It won't last forever. Make whatever moves you have available to you at this time to prepare for the times ahead. Like the boom years of Reagan and Clinton, we'll all look back at this time later and say "What an opportunity!" Sadly, there inevitably will be a fall like 2000 or 2008 at some point to bring us back to earth.

jdmichal 8y ago

I'd like to note that the article makes no claim regarding whether the tax cut saved households money. Rather, we now have the numbers that show a huge swing towards households owing taxes at the end of the year. That says nothing about the tax charged them, and everything about their withholding.

slg 8y ago
The tax bill was designed in a way to make people's previous withholdings inaccurate (although theoretically more accurate overall). That was politically motivated for two reasons. People were more likely to see a positive (or less likely to see a negative) impact on their paycheck from the tax bill passing. Republicans have also historically wanted to make the act of paying taxes more painful for the average American on the belief that it would generate political motivation for lowering taxes. Tweaking the withholding rules to result in larger payments (or lower refunds) when filing taxes is part of that plan. Both those points have nothing to do with whether the overall tax plan was beneficial for the average American or the country at large.
jvanderbot 8y ago
Which, by the way, was a suprise due to the mostly-unpublicized changes to the withholding rates. Add in tax penalties and it's a very unwelcome suprise for all but the most vigilant / those that pay people to manage their money.

humblebee 8y ago

I wish we also tracked the number of jobs people had. Having 600,000 new jobs is good, except if a high percentage of those are second jobs.

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
We track unemployment (at several different levels). Isn't the relevant question how many people don't have a job? Or are under-employed?
- humblebee 8y ago
  Far out hypothetical: Laws and regulations can be passed / amended that allow companies to cut the hours of employees by half and allow them to hire twice as many people. This produces more jobs, but I do not believe it's a positive. Maybe there is another metric that can be included to better represent if job grow is having a positive. Maybe under employed captures this. I don't know.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
    U-6 captures that [= Source: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

zaroth 8y ago

More lower income jobs is not the same as low quality job growth. It’s great to see job growth at the lower income spectrums, which ultimately leads to wage growth in that same area of the curve. There is no reasonable interpretation of our current nearly decade long run of employment numbers that is anything less than gangbusters. The US economy is literally the envy of the entire world right now.

djrogers 8y ago

> In addition to the no-surprise explanation of the "tax cut" not being an actual cut at all for most people Justify that statement please. Every single study of the 2017 tax cuts has shown that the vast majority of Americans did in fact get a tax cut. Every. Single. One. Even the New York Times admits as much. Either you haven't really looked in to this at all, or you've bought some policital rally baloney that is completey ungrounded in truth. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-t...

empath75 8y ago
Most people did not save a meaningful amount of money while the wealthy got a massive benefit in comparison.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Because most people likely spent the extra they got from the tax cut?
- djrogers 8y ago
  Not supported by facts in evidence.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  Taking that view further most people pay a meaningless amount of money in taxes while the wealthy pay the vast majority. The tax cut helped my family, if it didn't help yours perhaps consider if the state taxes you pay match up with the services rendered.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
From your link: > The middle fifth of earners got about a $780 tax cut last year on average, according to the Tax Policy Center. > The top 20 percent of earners received more than 60 percent of the total tax savings, according to the Tax Policy Center; the top 1 percent received nearly 17 percent of the total benefit, and got an average tax cut of more than $30,000. And that’s not even factoring in the law’s huge cut to corporate taxes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy households that own the most stock. Hence (rightfully so) pitchforks. The average American taxpayer was bamboozled.

seanwilson 8y ago

> I've been trying to explain to people for years now that reduction in unemployment does not mean people are getting good jobs Is there a better metric for this? Something that combines the number of people with jobs with the amount they're making?

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago

The article doesn't say the tax cut didn't help most people. It makes the point that most people didn't notice it because they only pay attention to their tax refund. Their tax refund is going to be lower because they paid less taxes over the course of the year. They are less likely to notice those incremental payments, but it's disingenuous to say they didn't receive a tax cut. Ideally you want your tax refund to be $0 and invest the money instead of overpaying taxes. Basically it boils down to who can manage your money better, do you need Uncle Sam to hold on to your money or not.

m0zg 8y ago

>> two-thirds of April’s new jobs were generated in lower-wage services industries Um, yeah, no shit. That's one of the segments this administration wants to help and create job market competition for: small businesses, low income people, folks who were SOL under previous administrations and voted for this one. Nearly every major economic initiative by this administration is targeted at tightening supply on the lower end of the job market: from stimulating manufacturing jobs, to China trade war, to NAFTA, to strengthening the border, and cutting off the flow of illegal low-wage labor. Reduction in unemployment means less supply, less supply coupled with higher demand means labor can command higher prices. This is economics 101.

nevrthepfhor 8y ago

Not a cut? Based on what data? Or is this a bait-and-switch where anything less than $2k is peanuts (so it's not really a cut)? I understand that people who own homes in high-tax states are missing out because of the SALT reform, but that's a far cry from 'most' people. I'm glad that taxes went down for most people, but the cut made the tax code far more progressive than it already was, which I don't think is fair. But it's better than nothing.

MuffinFlavored 8y ago

how has automation not been a factor here? call centers, truck driving, etc.

coolaliasbro 8y ago

Exactly. Like using lines of code as a proxy for progress or success.